... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Monday, 21 November 2016

Knowle relocation project: >>> a far more imposing development than assumed >>> "Until PegasusLife provide a proper Townscape and Visual Impact Statement covering all the views and perspectives on this massive development, (2.1 times the size recommended in the Local Plan), the DMC should not be asked to make a fair and accurate assessment of the proposal's worthiness for Sidmouth."

In the vicinity of
the viewpoint the lane extending east along the southern edge of the

field to the north.
comprises a grassed track providing access to a single private dwelling

with no through route
further to the east. The image appears to be a view from the private

garden of the last
(eastern-most) property on Boughmore
Lane (north-west of Cotlands).

which lies on
slightly elevated land to the south of the lane. This is deduced from the

hedgerow vegetation
in the foreground which only just extends up into the view. It is

unlikely that a
person standing in the lane would have such an elevated view above the

hedge even if it had
been trimmed. In either scenario this is not a viewpoint that is

representative of the
public visual experience.

Wrong
- the photograph was taken from the upper section of Cotlands housing estate.
The viewpoint is fully representative of the public visual experience.

3.4

Representative
viewpoints for assessment of visual effects were agreed with EDDC prior to

the submission of the
application. In accordance with paragraph 6.16 of the Guidelines for

Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment (3rd
Edition)
2013 these viewpoints are all

publicly accessible
locations. No requirement for private viewpoints was expressed by

EDDC.

If
this is true, why did EDDC Planning not request this obvious west view of the
development? Might the Council's desire to sell (dependent on their own Planning
Permission) have influenced the creation of a 'one-sided' Statement for their
own DMC?

3.5

The photocollage is
also obviously inaccurate. It appears to be a cropped extract from the

submission elevation
drawings manipulated in Adobe Photoshop or similar software; and

crudely masked into a
baseline photograph. The manipulated two-dimensional images of

buildings are clearly
distorted in form and no description is given of attempts to provide an

accurate scale of the
built forms in the image. The imagery used does not reflect the actual

material surface of
the proposed built forms as shown in the verified photomontages used

for the planning
submission and the CGls. Foreground vegetation is shown as removed with

an
apparently arbitrary feathering of the edges of the vegetation shown in the
image.

The proposed planting
of substantial canopy species along this boundary, between the

viewpoint and the
proposed built form, including Sweet Chestnut and Tulip Tree species,

has been omitted.

As
is suggested, the photocollage does not reflect the actual materials to be used.
This is because it used the only information on the building masses publicly available
at the time (August 16). It sets out purely to show the height and rough visual
mass effect of the structure on west Sidmouth.

Foreground
vegetation is removed because Building E sits on top of it. Proposed planting
is ignored for the same reason the 'die-off' of existing trees is ignored - due
to the time scale involved.

3.6

Finally, no
methodology for how the image has been prepared is provided. There is no

attempt to
demonstrate or explain that the photograph has been accurately aligned to the

image shown. There is
no indication of the correct scale for viewing.

The
building heights were checked (and adjusted) after inspection by a local
architect. These are of necessity approximate, but extremely close. The
methodology can be supplied. We request a west view photomontage from PegasusLife
(with methodology supplied).

3.7

For the reasons
given, the image is inaccurate and unrepresentative; does not confirm to

Visual Impact
Assessment; and cannot reasonably be afforded any weight in consideration

of
townscape or visual impact.

For reasons given below, nor can the
Townscape and Visual Impact Statement.

RESPONSE;

1)Why
were PegasusLife asked only to produce a 'commentary' on my photomontage -
instead of providing a photomontage of their own showing this crucial view of
the new development?

2)Why
was this view from Cotlands (not Boughmore Lane as stated in 3.3 of the Barton Willmore
Addendum) never covered in the original Townscape and Visual Impact Statement,
and still not?

3)Why
is there no comparable view to P5 in the TVIS (taken half way up Salcombe Hill)
from the west side? This is a glaring omission. The Peak Hill side view -
visible from numerous roads and houses including the golf course, has been
completely ignored. The only west side view is P1, from 100 yards away looking up
a narrow, hedged section of Knowle Drive. This is not a Visual Impact Statement,
it is a one-sided (literally) Visual Impact perspective, with so many omissions
as to be inadmissible.

4)Until PegasusLife
provide a proper Townscape and Visual Impact Statement covering all the
views and perspectives on this massive development, (2.1 times the size
recommended in the Local Plan), the DMC should not be asked to make a fair and
accurate assessment of the proposal's worthiness for Sidmouth.

No comments:

"a forum to stimulate debate"

The purpose of this blog is to explore the issues that are impacting on Sidmouth's present and future - and to give voice to the variety of opinions around those issues.

The Futures Forum does notendorse, support, represent or guarantee the fairness, completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of the content given or opinions expressed in postings on this blog.

About this blog

... on behalf of the Futures Forum of the Vision Group for Sidmouth in East Devon.
To add a comment, just click on 'No Comments' at the bottom of any posting. Thank you.
Contact: jw.beeproject@gmail.com